6 ms·

I’d like to see all social media sites require proper age verification, much like any gambling sites in the UK have to. No under 18 needs social media. Feel, es

I’d like to see all social media sites require proper age verification, much like any gambling sites in the UK have to. No under 18 needs social media. Feel, especially for children, they are a net negative.

EpicQuest_246 2y ago
Which kills any sort of online anonymity as all social media posts will be directly linked to your ID. This will make it much easier to go after anyone that is a dissident in the UK. Many these awful laws such as one being discussed are sold to us under the guise of protecting the children. The last time I checked 7 people a day were being prosecuted for speech related crimes in the UK (and I checked a while ago). Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's social media usage.
- ccozan 2y ago
  Ok but UK is not an oppresive regime, so that we talk about "dissidents" in UK. As anywhere, the freedom of speech is regulated. But even if you spout racist or other nonsense, you are not a dissident, you are just breaking the law, to which I agree, hate speech, racism should not be openly promoted.
  - EpicQuest_246 2y ago
    The definition of hate speech used to be centered around terrorism and was initially sold to the UK public as stopping "Islamic hate preachers and stopping terrorism". This has now expanded far past that and people are being investigated and arrested for simply opposing immigration (which is often conflated with racism disingenuously), or criticising the actions of Israel, teenagers posting rap lyrics on facebook, and numerous others that I have forgotten about. If you are not bothered by the expansion of these powers because some people have said things you disapprove of there is nothing I can say to convince you.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/11/britain-leads-the-world-in-cracking-down-on-climate-activism-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/11/britain-... Certain types of demonstrator get very heavily cracked down on, and it's not usually the anti-immigrant ones.
- nottorp 2y ago
  > This will make it much easier to go after anyone that is a dissident in the UK. No need to go there. What about commenting anonymously on your work place?
  - EpicQuest_246 2y ago
    It wouldn't be anonymous then if it was in my work place.
    - nottorp 2y ago
      Yes, so no one will comment on their employer because they'd risk trouble.
      - EpicQuest_246 2y ago
        There are so many issues with stripping anonymity. TBH I will probably end up 100% either using a VPN or the darknet.
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  I think laws and regulations can be put in place that, while imperfect, would highly discourage the use of social media by minors. I wouldn't want every user to validate their age with government ID. But we can say schools should ban kids from using phones. We can say that large social media platforms need to whitelist content/creators that children are allowed to access. We can insist that social media companies throttle the ability for minors to scroll through videos at a dopamine addiction pace. More generally and more applicable to the discussion, I think regulations for social media need to be applied proportional to the userbase and centralization of a platform, and target viral algorithms. Old school message boards should be safe from government interference, broadly. It may be time to research simpleX chat and Briar if we will maintain the ability to communicate without government filtering.
  - EpicQuest_246 2y ago
    > I wouldn't want every user to validate their age with government ID. Well that is what will be required or a credit card. > But we can say schools should ban kids from using phones. We can say that large social media platforms need to whitelist content/creators that children are allowed to access. We can insist that social media companies throttle the ability for minors to scroll through videos at a dopamine addiction pace. Every argument around regulation around social media to protect children ignores that fact that parents are the ones closest to their children and their children is their responsibility. Some parents inability to control their children shouldn't infringe my rights as an adult. > More generally and more applicable to the discussion, I think regulations for social media need to be applied proportional to the userbase and centralization of a platform, and target viral algorithms. If I don't like how particular algorithms act on social media, I can simply opt out of using it. As an adult I have agency. I found that I was spending a disproportionate of my time using Twitter/X and as a result I deleted my account. I had problem with alcohol years ago, I stopped drinking after I accepted I had a problem. I have my own agency. > It may be time to research simpleX chat and Briar if we will maintain the ability to communicate without government filtering. The issue is that the vast majority of people I wish to talk to aren't tech savvy and are unwilling to use anything other than mainstream platforms. So you end up essentially walling yourself from everyone else. That isn't ideal.
- herghost 2y ago
  >Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's social media usage. I guess we should stop checking age when buying alcohol in pubs (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's alcohol purchases_) And stop checking age when buying cigarettes (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's tobacco purchases_) etc. It's illuminating that your post is both "tech can't solve it" and so brazenly pro-tech with manifestations of its laziest arguments each way. Of course tech can solve the ID problem. It could solve it in a way that doesn't need to give ground to your slippery slope argument too. It just doesn't have the incentive model to do so. Any "control" in this space would reduce the marketable headcount and so it's not in tech's interests to solve - without government intervention.
  - w4der 2y ago
    But when I go and buy booze, I just show my ID and that's it, it isn't stored in a database with what I bought and then leaked on the internet.
    - herghost 2y ago
      The card you might have paid with is though. I can’t remember any instances of a card hack revealing transactions of customers though (I might be wrong, just doesn’t ring a bell). It’s not a given that digital record must lead to compromise.
      - EpicQuest_246 2y ago
        They could have paid with a cash, crypto, store credit. You are trying to salami slice the point being made.
  - EpicQuest_246 2y ago
    If I choose to buy alcohol or cigarettes and I look over 25 in the UK I do not have to show any ID. If I do need to show ID, it doesn't get tracked by the government. It is only seen by the whoever is serving me at the checkout. I don't honestly believe that you don't understand how this is different. > It's illuminating that your post is both "tech can't solve it" and so brazenly pro-tech with manifestations of its laziest arguments each way. I believe that the only way to stop enforcement is to make it impossible to enforce. This would require new software that is easy to use by the majority of people. I don't see this happening in the near term. > Of course tech can solve the ID problem. It could solve it in a way that doesn't need to give ground to your slippery slope argument too. It just doesn't have the incentive model to do so. Any "control" in this space would reduce the marketable headcount and so it's not in tech's interests to solve - without government intervention. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The fact is that some sort of government ID will be required or a credit card and that would be directly linked to any accounts you may have. Simply this is a bad idea for my own security, I don't want to be giving my government ID to some social media company in the first place or a third party that I maybe unfamiliar with. That before we get into any other wider reaching concerns.
- owisd 2y ago
  It's not that hard to create privacy friendly age verification. Have a system like Sign in with Apple vouch that you're over 18. Go to Apple store to flash your ID and they just set a flag on your account. Apple doesn't give the site any personal info when you use Sign in with Apple. Apple isn't giving the government any of your details without a warrant. No Apple store nearby? It doesn't have to be Apple, licence it out to a few companies.
  - EpicQuest_246 2y ago
    I don't want to use Apple anything, or Google anything anymore. I want to be able to make an account with my email and not give my ID to any third party. I've spent the last 8 years removing my dependence on big-tech (I self host, run a Linux desktop and use Graphene OS).
frikskit 2y ago
Agree with you. I’m not sure why people believe that only the physical world and not the virtual one should have some amount of regulation. I think a good portion of HN has drunk the kool aid of their employers/industry and is almost religiously unwilling to consider an alternative viewpoint without resorting to shouting ‘fascist’ and ‘1984’. Maybe someone needs to write a book called 2024 about the hellscape we currently live in and folks could circle jerk around this new shibboleth.
- Lanolderen 2y ago
  Why would it be the "kool aid of their employers"? My employers would surely love to track every single click I make on the work and even personal PC. If the government tracks it that's also fine. Still less risk for them if I'm a nutter and the checks get outsourced to the government. Once the data leaks they can check what I was doing anyway.
  - frikskit 2y ago
    Social media companies don’t want any kind of regulation because it adds cost to them. Their PR bangs the drum of free speech and people economically tied to the industry gobble it up while trying to ignore the self serving nature of their new beliefs.
    - MiddleEndian 2y ago
      >Social media companies don’t want any kind of regulation because it adds cost to them. Their PR bangs the drum of free speech and people economically tied to the industry gobble it up while trying to ignore the self serving nature of their new beliefs. Disagree here. If it is legally onerous for me to start a forum, I am more inclined to use a large social media site like Facebook, since they will handle the legal part for me. They are fine with that, they already have legal teams. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51518773 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51518773 "Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook boss urges tighter regulation"
      - 2y ago
Dalewyn 2y ago
At least in the US, legislation for age verification already exists and it actually far predates social media: COPPA[1]. It is, however, seldom actually enforced due largely to the impracticality and inconvenience of the matter. The law also doesn't regulate the presentation of content to children, rather the collection of information from children. I think the most recent enforcement of COPPA that had actual tangible effect was when Youtube was ordered to stop collecting information (eg: comments) from videos marked as for kids. [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security/childrens-privacy https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security/child...
- Zak 2y ago
  COPPA does not appear to require age verification. It actually appears to have the opposite effect, only coming into effect when the service provider has actual knowledge of the user's age. Actively avoiding collecting the user's age or clues to it is safer for the service provider.

EpicQuest_246 2y ago

Which kills any sort of online anonymity as all social media posts will be directly linked to your ID. This will make it much easier to go after anyone that is a dissident in the UK. Many these awful laws such as one being discussed are sold to us under the guise of protecting the children. The last time I checked 7 people a day were being prosecuted for speech related crimes in the UK (and I checked a while ago). Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's social media usage.

ccozan 2y ago
Ok but UK is not an oppresive regime, so that we talk about "dissidents" in UK. As anywhere, the freedom of speech is regulated. But even if you spout racist or other nonsense, you are not a dissident, you are just breaking the law, to which I agree, hate speech, racism should not be openly promoted.
- EpicQuest_246 2y ago
  The definition of hate speech used to be centered around terrorism and was initially sold to the UK public as stopping "Islamic hate preachers and stopping terrorism". This has now expanded far past that and people are being investigated and arrested for simply opposing immigration (which is often conflated with racism disingenuously), or criticising the actions of Israel, teenagers posting rap lyrics on facebook, and numerous others that I have forgotten about. If you are not bothered by the expansion of these powers because some people have said things you disapprove of there is nothing I can say to convince you.
- pjc50 2y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/11/britain-leads-the-world-in-cracking-down-on-climate-activism-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/11/britain-... Certain types of demonstrator get very heavily cracked down on, and it's not usually the anti-immigrant ones.
nottorp 2y ago
> This will make it much easier to go after anyone that is a dissident in the UK. No need to go there. What about commenting anonymously on your work place?
- EpicQuest_246 2y ago
  It wouldn't be anonymous then if it was in my work place.
  - nottorp 2y ago
    Yes, so no one will comment on their employer because they'd risk trouble.
    - EpicQuest_246 2y ago
      There are so many issues with stripping anonymity. TBH I will probably end up 100% either using a VPN or the darknet.
unethical_ban 2y ago
I think laws and regulations can be put in place that, while imperfect, would highly discourage the use of social media by minors. I wouldn't want every user to validate their age with government ID. But we can say schools should ban kids from using phones. We can say that large social media platforms need to whitelist content/creators that children are allowed to access. We can insist that social media companies throttle the ability for minors to scroll through videos at a dopamine addiction pace. More generally and more applicable to the discussion, I think regulations for social media need to be applied proportional to the userbase and centralization of a platform, and target viral algorithms. Old school message boards should be safe from government interference, broadly. It may be time to research simpleX chat and Briar if we will maintain the ability to communicate without government filtering.
- EpicQuest_246 2y ago
  > I wouldn't want every user to validate their age with government ID. Well that is what will be required or a credit card. > But we can say schools should ban kids from using phones. We can say that large social media platforms need to whitelist content/creators that children are allowed to access. We can insist that social media companies throttle the ability for minors to scroll through videos at a dopamine addiction pace. Every argument around regulation around social media to protect children ignores that fact that parents are the ones closest to their children and their children is their responsibility. Some parents inability to control their children shouldn't infringe my rights as an adult. > More generally and more applicable to the discussion, I think regulations for social media need to be applied proportional to the userbase and centralization of a platform, and target viral algorithms. If I don't like how particular algorithms act on social media, I can simply opt out of using it. As an adult I have agency. I found that I was spending a disproportionate of my time using Twitter/X and as a result I deleted my account. I had problem with alcohol years ago, I stopped drinking after I accepted I had a problem. I have my own agency. > It may be time to research simpleX chat and Briar if we will maintain the ability to communicate without government filtering. The issue is that the vast majority of people I wish to talk to aren't tech savvy and are unwilling to use anything other than mainstream platforms. So you end up essentially walling yourself from everyone else. That isn't ideal.
herghost 2y ago
>Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's social media usage. I guess we should stop checking age when buying alcohol in pubs (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's alcohol purchases_) And stop checking age when buying cigarettes (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's tobacco purchases_) etc. It's illuminating that your post is both "tech can't solve it" and so brazenly pro-tech with manifestations of its laziest arguments each way. Of course tech can solve the ID problem. It could solve it in a way that doesn't need to give ground to your slippery slope argument too. It just doesn't have the incentive model to do so. Any "control" in this space would reduce the marketable headcount and so it's not in tech's interests to solve - without government intervention.
- w4der 2y ago
  But when I go and buy booze, I just show my ID and that's it, it isn't stored in a database with what I bought and then leaked on the internet.
  - herghost 2y ago
    The card you might have paid with is though. I can’t remember any instances of a card hack revealing transactions of customers though (I might be wrong, just doesn’t ring a bell). It’s not a given that digital record must lead to compromise.
    - EpicQuest_246 2y ago
      They could have paid with a cash, crypto, store credit. You are trying to salami slice the point being made.
- EpicQuest_246 2y ago
  If I choose to buy alcohol or cigarettes and I look over 25 in the UK I do not have to show any ID. If I do need to show ID, it doesn't get tracked by the government. It is only seen by the whoever is serving me at the checkout. I don't honestly believe that you don't understand how this is different. > It's illuminating that your post is both "tech can't solve it" and so brazenly pro-tech with manifestations of its laziest arguments each way. I believe that the only way to stop enforcement is to make it impossible to enforce. This would require new software that is easy to use by the majority of people. I don't see this happening in the near term. > Of course tech can solve the ID problem. It could solve it in a way that doesn't need to give ground to your slippery slope argument too. It just doesn't have the incentive model to do so. Any "control" in this space would reduce the marketable headcount and so it's not in tech's interests to solve - without government intervention. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The fact is that some sort of government ID will be required or a credit card and that would be directly linked to any accounts you may have. Simply this is a bad idea for my own security, I don't want to be giving my government ID to some social media company in the first place or a third party that I maybe unfamiliar with. That before we get into any other wider reaching concerns.
owisd 2y ago
It's not that hard to create privacy friendly age verification. Have a system like Sign in with Apple vouch that you're over 18. Go to Apple store to flash your ID and they just set a flag on your account. Apple doesn't give the site any personal info when you use Sign in with Apple. Apple isn't giving the government any of your details without a warrant. No Apple store nearby? It doesn't have to be Apple, licence it out to a few companies.
- EpicQuest_246 2y ago
  I don't want to use Apple anything, or Google anything anymore. I want to be able to make an account with my email and not give my ID to any third party. I've spent the last 8 years removing my dependence on big-tech (I self host, run a Linux desktop and use Graphene OS).

frikskit 2y ago

Agree with you. I’m not sure why people believe that only the physical world and not the virtual one should have some amount of regulation. I think a good portion of HN has drunk the kool aid of their employers/industry and is almost religiously unwilling to consider an alternative viewpoint without resorting to shouting ‘fascist’ and ‘1984’. Maybe someone needs to write a book called 2024 about the hellscape we currently live in and folks could circle jerk around this new shibboleth.

Lanolderen 2y ago
Why would it be the "kool aid of their employers"? My employers would surely love to track every single click I make on the work and even personal PC. If the government tracks it that's also fine. Still less risk for them if I'm a nutter and the checks get outsourced to the government. Once the data leaks they can check what I was doing anyway.
- frikskit 2y ago
  Social media companies don’t want any kind of regulation because it adds cost to them. Their PR bangs the drum of free speech and people economically tied to the industry gobble it up while trying to ignore the self serving nature of their new beliefs.
  - MiddleEndian 2y ago
    >Social media companies don’t want any kind of regulation because it adds cost to them. Their PR bangs the drum of free speech and people economically tied to the industry gobble it up while trying to ignore the self serving nature of their new beliefs. Disagree here. If it is legally onerous for me to start a forum, I am more inclined to use a large social media site like Facebook, since they will handle the legal part for me. They are fine with that, they already have legal teams. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51518773 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51518773 "Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook boss urges tighter regulation"
    - 2y ago

Dalewyn 2y ago

At least in the US, legislation for age verification already exists and it actually far predates social media: COPPA[1]. It is, however, seldom actually enforced due largely to the impracticality and inconvenience of the matter. The law also doesn't regulate the presentation of content to children, rather the collection of information from children. I think the most recent enforcement of COPPA that had actual tangible effect was when Youtube was ordered to stop collecting information (eg: comments) from videos marked as for kids. [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security/childrens-privacy https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security/child...

Zak 2y ago
COPPA does not appear to require age verification. It actually appears to have the opposite effect, only coming into effect when the service provider has actual knowledge of the user's age. Actively avoiding collecting the user's age or clues to it is safer for the service provider.